New Clevos with Max-Q?

At Computex, Nvidia just announced a new technology to pack 1060, 70 and 80 cards in slim laptops:

http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/d...ed-nvidia-introduces-max-q-for-gaming-laptops

this other article shows a demo clevo with it:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3198...1080-graphics-in-a-thin-and-light-laptop.html

Maybe (maybe not) this nvidia move is a consequence of AMD coming to laptopts later this year, anyway is good news, isn't it? Any idea when this new clevos will be available?

 

clevo p950hr
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Ultra...us-is-Razer-s-latest-competitor.224654.0.html

 

Crippled power will never be a good idea!! Who want go back to mobile graphics with less power than the desktop versions? A crippled design intended for thin flimsy Apple similar Windoze laptops!!

 

Ohmahgerd, marketing spiel overload.

Benchmarking will be interesting with all these on the fly/under the hood things going on

Sounds like a bunch of visual fidelity compromises to make thin gaming laptops less problematic without just coming out and saying, we're not designing with tolerance buffers we're going to continue selling this stuff with "desktop quality" graphics then try and hide the fact it isn't capable of that with dodgy behind the scenes tricks that the average joe won't notice

 

I posted this on Reddit:

This is a nice way of saying they'll stuff a GTX 1080 in a thin-and-light, and throttle it when a heavy, sustained load is exerted on the GPU. Here's the Wikipedia entry on max-Q in aerodynamics, specifically relating to the Space Shuttle:

Let's read between the lines a little. nVidia's website states:

Yeah, that's called binning and under-volting*. No need for buzzwords like 'peak efficiency', 'low voltage optimised clock curve' blah blah— the chips are simply cherry-picked to leak less current and use less voltage (and in turn use less power) than a given random chip at a given clock frequency. This is what nVidia has done since last year with Pascal, given the fact that the GTX 1050 to GTX 1080 on notebooks are *almost exactly the same chips as their desktop counterparts, just with reduced clock speeds and lower TDPs. Nothing new here, just more buzzwords.

Then we have:

A whole paragraph to say that they'll be using better, tighter VRMs, thicker heat pipes, heatsinks with denser fin arrays and faster fans. You can't get any better cooling in laptops which are flat, and have to use squirrel-cage fans instead of the large, axial ones we see on desktop cases, CPU and GPU coolers. Possibly the addition of vapour chambers like the Clevo P870KM1, which would make such thin notebooks, not exactly very light.

Finally, there's:

This is essentially Radeon Chill, which, guess what—*throttles* the GPU when the scene displaying onscreen is not intensive. Sure, it's useful for a laptop, but why put a GTX 1080 in an 18mm-thick chassis in the first place, and then throttle it to 'keep it cool and quiet'?

All in all, this is nonsense, and pure marketing. It is unfortunate that people are lapping it up, because physics dictates otherwise. Say a given notebook has a Core i7-7820HK CPU with TDP 45 W, and a GTX 1080 with TDP 180 W. How is one going to remove roughly 200 to 250 J of thermal energy every second, without the notebook heating up, or the fans spinning up and—surprise, surprise—generating noise? Take a look at a notebook that is built on the concept of Max-Q, the thin, light Razer Blade Pro with the GTX 1080. Under gaming/synthetic bench loads, the GPU throttles so badly, that it performs more like a GTX 1070*. The RBP hit roughly 35 - 38 FPS at 4K on *The Witcher 3*; typical *desktop GTX 1080s hit nearly 50% more than that, at 53 FPS.

nVidia is using Max-Q to justify putting a very high TDP GPU in a thin-and-light notebook that will not be able to cool it well enough when a heavy, sustained maximum load is thrown at it. nVidia is actually marketing the fact that notebooks will throttle to keep themselves cool, instead of asking OEMs to design their notebooks to dissipate the maximum amount of heat generated, i.e. design thicker, fatter notebooks to keep things cool instead of throttling to keep things cool. Uninformed notebook buyers will fork out an extra several hundred quid for a notebook '18mm thick—as thin as a MacBook Air' only for it to perform hardly better than the MacBook Air anyway (this is hyperbole, but the point is made). *This is not a good thing*. It's like paying for a Lamborghini engine but in a Corolla chassis, where the engine overheats and throttles back when you try to exceed 100 km h^(-1).

TL;DR: Max-Q means overpowered, thin notebooks that cannot cool their components and hence throttle, and worse, where this throttling is actually an *advertised feature*.

 

Now that Nvidia has said A. So expect B !! More mess and we will not get rid of it. These low powered graphics were the reason why Nvidia stopped with M named graphics card. Back and forth... Just as far!! A sad day for us all!! I wonder what way Nvidia will cripple next gen graphics for laptops. This doesn't look very promising!!

 

on the bright side: no more excuses not to include standard MXM form factor pascal gpus above 1060 for us older laptop users

 

I haven't seen them as MXM versions, yet. The reason they are selling these underclocked chips is that people want slim Notebooks and still think they own a 1080:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ecture-2017-2018.794920/page-35#post-10534238

 

Exactly

 

I know that Clevo's new slim models can run and cool regular clocks/watts versions of the 1070&1060 as they have being doing that ever since they started R&D, BUT NVIDIA marketing is believed to be so successful to make people WANT Max-Q that they are down-clocked with Max-Q firmware just to get the Max-Q sticker.
In other words, Clevo artificially cripples their superior hardware with firmware just to appeal to non-tech savvy end-user (the majority) who thinks the emphasis of 'Max-Q' is on 'MAX' rather than 'Q'.

 

I think the P950HP6 is too slim even for the GTX 1070. The GTX 1060 already reaches 70 degrees C...

 

70c is nothing. HW Max is 105c and EC firmware max is 92c.

 

It won't break the card immediately but in time. The larger the heating-cooling cycle the more stress on the GPU long-term. So yes, 90C + is problematic IMO long-term.

 

Just quoting NVIDIAs own guidelines for Pascal max values...
Going to target something around 85c as default throttle temp for my vBIOS mods while giving people the option to lower it to 63c or raise it up to 92c for non-AC benching sessions as per their own preference.

 

Technically you would rather having a slower running 1080 over a full clocked 1070 in terms of efficiency.

But 1080lp (low power) is not as easy to market as buzzwords.

 

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1060-Max-Q-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.224734.0.html

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1070-Max-Q-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.224732.0.html

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q
https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1080-Max-Q-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.224730.0.html

 

85C is reasonable.

 

Just so you get an idea of what is in stock for Max-Q systems:

1070 Max-Q:

Spoiler

(Ignore the vRAM speed, it's identical to the regular model)

Regular 1070:

Spoiler

We are easily running 2000Mhz+ on the regular 1070, so when they are talking about Max-Q having 90% the performance of the regular model I find that a bit overambitious...

Maybe 'Max-T' (throttle) should become the community name.

 

Marketing, it's all just marketing...

AMD, where the hell are you with Vega?

 

It's very impressive how they twist facts around to sell stuff:

Money guy to Tech-guy:

"Make the 10x0 work in a slimmer Notebook"

Tech guy to Money-guy:

"No can do! We would have to throttle clocks, temps and voltage by xx% to make it run at all"

Money-Guy to Marketing-guy:

"Tech can't get it working! Sell it either way"!

Marketing to Money-Guy:

"THE AWESOME NEW 10x0 NOW NOW WITH THE MAXIMUM THROTTLE QUALITY POSSIBLE"!

 

It will be interesting to see how they spin the actual performance results after reviewers get their hands on the Max-Q laptops and compare them to full performance GPU's with the same name.

Hopefully it's not a software de-tuning, that gets applied to all GPU's upon new driver releases in parallel with the Max-Q GPU release, and all of a sudden all 10xx GPU's are following the same "de-tuning", to make them all appear equal.

 

Now that the NDA is up, I can report that we've been testing several MAX-Q chassis for a while now. So far, we haven't tested one which fits into our portfolio of products, or to look at it another way we haven't seen a solution which we feel fills a gap between our current available laptops or that offers anything superior.

This may change in time as things mature, plus we're currently exploring some options to improve the prototypes that we have tested already.

I want to emphasise that these comments aren't aimed at or limited to Clevo chassis.

 

Can you add any details to this? What under performance numbers do the Max-Q tuned GPU's provide when testing side by side with non-Max-Q GPU's?

 

PLACEHOLDER - I need to check with our R&D to see if they are ok with releasing the test results, as they were taken a number of weeks ago before the NDA. Also whatever I am able to post should reflect the fact that they were not mass production models. More will follow..............

 

This awfully sounds like they just gone and made a 1060m, 1070m, and 1080m but gone and tarted it up and called it Max-Q. I assume the cost for these chips will cost more than the current offerings.

 

Meanwhile at /r/nVidia, the fanboys cannot take cold hard truth and are downvoting me for telling the truth. Oh, well..

 

Well, Reddit is literally the worst, so...

 

The older 100w Mobile MMX graphics design Who worked wasn't good enough for the New Hype. Same ****y but in new dress... As Notebookcheck stated "The power consumption of the Max-Q design is notably lower than the normal GTX 1080 for laptops and ranges between 90 and 110 Watt (TGP) according to Nvidia." I really hope this new "dress" will be a big failure!! But people let themselves be screwed time after time Hit back... Vote with your wallets!! This thin and flimsy must be stopped!!

 

While I agree that nVidia did drink maybe a little bit too much of the marketing koolaid a bit much for this product, I think you're over-exaggerating a little bit as to how these things will actually perform.

I looked at your reddit posts, and you make claims such as "The Max-Q notebooks will give you neither performance nor good cooling." and "These Max-Q laptops will run hot, very, very hot. " Do you even have benchmarks to back this up? We'll know either way soon(or even closer if XMG can release theirs). Your Razer example doesn't hold up due to this having additional design guidelines that may greatly influence the performance of the notebook. You even self-admittedly used hyperbole to exaggerate your point like you did with the car example.

A good example for car is the Tesla. After sustained heavy loads or repeated acceleration the car will throttle. It doesn't mean that the car is terrible, it just means that it's not for everyone. Doesn't mean that it's terrible for everyone.

Also I think this is perfect for me. I am looking for a lighter / thinner gaming notebook that will still perform well, and I am ok with it not being exactly on par with the regular equivalents, as long as it can be sustained. I would expect though that the Max-Q version of the chip at least perform better than the lower regular version (i.e. max-q 1070 better than regular 1060). If this doesn't happen then yes I will be disappointed as well.

It's sad to see people here say "this doesn't work for me, therefore this won't work for anyone!". This is just as bad as the people who say "why buy a notebook, build a pc!" when they say they need a computer they can take on the go without an outlet.

I do kind of wish that nvidia could name the parts a little bit better though so people don't get confused.

 

Well, regular models also throttle back when exceeding limits. But these new models already run below that throttle speed as their turbo speed and then run even slower when they start to use their own throttle. All while costing the same premium for sharing a GPU name.

Personally I would prefer a more affordable slim 'real' 1060 model, which gives me room for overclocking, over a more expensive 'Q' 1070 model, which can hardly be overclocked to even run on stock clocks, if at all.

 

Do you have anything on AMD Vega or even threadripper in a clevo laptop?

Just wondering whether i should wait a bit before hitting the buy button for a U727.

 

Defending overpriced low powered fake 1060/1070 or 1080 graphics. Oh'well
Maybe Nvidia should go back to make only those graphics for all laptops as well. It will be a bigger mess than ever!!
Nvidia need to make a new range. Perhaps... 2000/2010/2020/2030/2040/2050/2060/2070 and finally Gtx2080. A lot cleaner do it this way!! Each step, more performance. What they do now is crazy!! Only more mess and more milking!!

 

Instead of responding to me with rational arguments, you go for hyperbole and craziness. Nice to see how you really operate.

I wasn't directly defending nvidia 100% (I stated too that I wished they had a better naming convention, but they are at least showing its different), and I also listed my expectations for the chip. I fully know very well that the potential 1070 max-q that i may get won't perform as well as a regular 1070, but I fully expect it to be better than a regular 1060. If not, then yea I will be very disappointed in nvidia.

Doesn't matter, in a few weeks we'll have benchmarks. And if the 1070 max-q underperforms greatly then yea I'll say nvidia failed. But until then all you have is baseless speculation.

 

they could call them gtx1055, gtx1065 and gtx1075

 

Nvidia Can't max profit This way!! Can't charge 1080 prices for 1075. If I pay for 1080, I want 1080 power. Less is fraud. See Razerbook!!

 

NVIDIA is breastfeeding the children. There is nothing unusual about that.

NVIDIA has never been reasonable about prices. They are now worse than ever. You can buy two desktop 1080 Ti for the same as one mobile 1080. As long as people are stupid enough (including myself in this criticism) to continue to open their wallets for overpriced garbage they will continue milking the cash cow and laughing to the bank. Their fortunes are based on our collective stupidity.

 

yes, you are right!

 

But this time even worse Fox. Two desktop 1080Ti for single crippled power gimped aka castrated 1080 Max- QCrippled Edition. Means even less for your hard earned money!!

 

Being crushed under the weight of NDAs so "I can neither confirm nor deny details of any operation without the Secretary's approval.". But seriously, if it were mypersonal decision I would buy now or wait until next year when Volta will be popping up. If you read the Ryzen in Clevo thread there's more information that will probably answer your question in more detail.

 

Yes, this. A properly performing GTX 1060 will get much better battery life and perform almost on par with a GTX 1070 Max-Q Hotbox throttling

 

Watched that MI a couple weeks back! Loved the reference!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Out of curiosity. Have you played around with any 1060 bgabook?

 

I wonder if the MaxQ exists is because:

1. Nvidia/ODMs seem to have over-estimated the thermal output of the GTX1060. ie. They generate a lot less heat than the Chassis' they're using were originally designed for.
2. You run into power limits trying to push the existing 1060 any further, thus the only option is to jam in a 1070 and work backwards.

Basically, every "thin" 1060 machine that has come out in recent history has been more than capable of boosting the GPU without thermal issues (usually power limiter is the problem). Mainly because they were originally designed for the hotter 970M/980M chips. Even the Razer Blade (ie the well known king of thermal throttling!) has the GPU sitting at a rather mild 80C. The GTX1060 in my P650RP is practically on holiday most of the time and rarely goes over 65C. Granted, the P650 already has a bigger GTX1070 equipped cousin, many of the other "thin and light" 1060 machines do not. Examples I can think of are the GS63, Aero 14, Aorus X3, GL502. Almost all of them actually don't have thermal issues on the GPU side, only on the CPU side which for the most part, doesn't really occur when gaming.

 

Max-Q... I could speculate what the "Q" stands for, but it would be against forum rules to post it. Underpowered, throttling marketing gimmick for silly boys... I think we are smart enough to connect the dots.

We already have tons of thin and light options that are incapable of running correctly due to stunted form factor, but we did not need a chintzy title like Max-Q for them. I can think of a few brands that have been selling this garbage for a while now.

Maybe with NVIDIOT branding they can charge extra for it. After all, the Green Goblin's endorsement does make it extra special.

 

the razer blade pro 1080 is a glimpse of what the max-q is like

gimped 1080, BEATEN BY A GIMPED 115W GTX1070

paying top dollar for tier 1 product only to get beaten by a tier 2 product

 

Before you get too far ahead of yourself, it's worth noting that in almost all cases the GPUs in said "stunted" laptops are fine. It's almost always the CPU that overheats and throttles to hell.

 

No problem bro Fox. I can tell you... Q stands for http://www.q-meieriene.no/ A well known Milk factory in NORWAY who make all types MILK... See MILKING And we all know what this naming refers to when we talk about Tech Yeah, nGreedia hit the correct name for this Gimped products

Spoiler: NVIDIA CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang the new MILK BOSS

 

I watched it again last weekend hence that quote came into my mind, I wondered if anyone would pick up on it you were the first if perhaps the only one !!!!!

 

@Prema, do you have any rough performance indications of these Max-Q machines? How would a typical Max-Q notebook with a GTX 1080 perform? Maybe Fire Strike graphics scores?